sw-l-digest V1 #2411

Sandy Fleming sandy at SCOTSTEXT.ORG
Mon May 28 21:29:05 UTC 2007

Hi Gerard,

On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 23:07 +0200, GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a clear distinction between the rights of a copyright holder
> and the rights of a licensee.

I didn't realise this! Thanks!

> I agree with Steven that SignWriting behaves like a font and that as a
> consequence a license that is intended for fonts will fit the needs
> best.

As we were discussing earlier, though, there is more than one
SignWriting font. If someone designs a new Latin alphabet font (let's
say from scratch, although they must have learned the shapes of the
characters from some earlier font), they have the copyright to it.
Wouldn't it be the same if someone designs a new SignWriting font? Or is
it different because the origins of our Latin alphabet are lost in

> When you consider licenses, there are different licenses for different
> types of objects. There are specific licenses for software, for fonts
> and also for content. What we have been discussing is a license for
> the SignWriting characters. The need for this is quite different from
> the license for programs and content. I would strongly urge you to see
> these as different matters.

I see what you're saying, but the distinction isn't necessarily clear in
every case. For example, the program I'm writing attempts to reduce the
workload in creating the huge number of SignWriting symbols by
calculating sets of shapes by geometry within the program. The final
result may be a font, but it's created on the fly by the software so
kind of difficult to separate out from the license on the software
itself. Since by altering one or two geometrical calculations within the
program I could get it to create a whole new font, I wonder if a font
license would really cover what it does?

I may just be getting confused here, but I need to be unconfused about
it  :)


More information about the Sw-l mailing list